497
Barbara A. Lafford, Peter A. Lafford, and Julie Sykes
Entre dicho y hecho …: An Assessment of
the Application of Research from Second
Language Acquisition and Related Fields
to the Creation of Spanish CALL
Materials for Lexical Acquisition
BARBARA A. LAFFORD
PETER A. LAFFORD
Arizona State University
JULIE SYKES
University of Minnesota
ABSTRACT
Despite the problems presented by lexical errors in second language (L2) communication, most computer assisted language learning (CALL) programs tend to
focus on the acquisition of grammar points rather than on the development of the
L2 lexicon. In addition, CALL vocabulary tasks are typically limited in scope
and mechanical in nature, covering mostly basic lexical meanings and ignoring many implications of language-related research that points out the need to
focus on the layers of meanings associated with lexical items in various cultural
contexts. This article brings together findings from research in various research
fields related to Spanish SLA (e.g., cognitive psychology, psycholinguistics, and
sociolinguistics) in order to propose 10 design features (DFs) of CALL software
that would apply these insights to the creation of various types of computerbased lexical acquisition activities. As the authors propose these principles, they
review several examples of Spanish CALL lexical materials in terms of their application of current theory (SLA and related fields) to practice (the design of the
software activities to teach vocabulary). To conclude, the authors discuss logistical barriers that complicate and inhibit the application of theory and empirical
research to practice in the creation of Spanish CALL lexical materials.
KEYWORDS
CALL, Lexical Acquisition, Design Features (DFs), Second Language Acquisition
INTRODUCTION
In the spirit of the interdisciplinary approach to the study of second language acquisition (SLA), as proposed by McLaughlin (1998), Kramsch (2000), and AtkinCALICO Journal, 24 (3), p-p 497-529.
© 2007 CALICO Journal
498
CALICO Journal, Vol. 24, No. 3
son (2002), this article brings together findings from research in various research
fields related to Spanish SLA (e.g., cognitive psychology, psycholinguistics, and
sociolinguistics) in order to propose 10 design features (DFs) of computer-assisted language learning (CALL) software that would apply these insights to the
creation of various types of computer-based lexical acquisition activities. As we
propose these principles we will review several examples of Spanish CALL lexical materials (stand-alone CD-ROM and DVD products as well as those that accompany textbooks, either CD-ROM or web based) currently on the market in
terms of their application of current theory (SLA and related fields) to practice
(the design of the software activities to teach vocabulary). In addition, we will
discuss logistical barriers that complicate and inhibit the application of theory and
empirical research to practice in the creation of Spanish CALL lexical materials.
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE STUDY OF SECOND LANGUAGE LEXICAL ACQUISITION
The importance of the study of second language (L2) vocabulary acquisition is
evident from research findings cited by Gass and Selinker (2001, p. 372): (a)
lexical errors constitute most L2 errors, and (b) both learners and native speakers
(NSs) view lexical errors as the most serious and disruptive obstacles to communication. These results are consonant with VanPatten’s (1996) concept of communicative value in his input processing model. Within this model, students pay
more attention to meaning than to form in the input they receive; those items in the
input with greater communicative value (nouns, verbs, and adjectives with lexical
meaning) are perceived, comprehended, and converted to intake more easily than
grammatical markers (e.g., past time preterite and imperfect verbal aspectual endings) that redundantly provide information already presented by lexical items in
the linguistic context (e.g., past time = ayer ‘yesterday’). Results of research on
computer-mediated communication (CMC) (Blake, 2000; Blake & Zyzik, 2003;
Tudini, 2003; Smith, 2003) also show that learners tend to negotiate for meaning
(lexical issues) rather than for form (syntactic and grammatical errors).
Despite the central role that the lexicon plays in second language acquisition, a
cursory look at most CALL programs will reveal that the great majority of practice and assessment activities focus on L2 grammar rather than on L2 vocabulary.
Unfortunately, this lack of attention to the acquisition of lexical items on the part
of software authors and publishers (related, perhaps, to the relative lack of research on L2 lexical acquisition published to date1) has resulted in an abundance
of mechanical CALL vocabulary exercises that focus on the lexical meaning of
single word items (e.g., matching L1-L2 meanings, matching L2 lexical items
with pictures, and fill-ins) and that do not often provide insights into the meaning
of the lexical item in context as a reflection of perspectives, products, or practices
(National Standards, 1996) of the target culture, nor into the organization of the
L2 lexical schemata (word associations) in the minds of NSs of the target language.
Therefore, in order to bring CALL activities that purport to facilitate the complex process of lexical (vocabulary) acquisition in line with the insights of current
Barbara A. Lafford, Peter A. Lafford, and Julie Sykes
499
research, it is imperative that the decisions of software authors and publishers be
informed by the work of scholars from many disciplines. The 10 DFs of lexical
CALL activities proposed in this paper constitute a step in that direction.
THE L2 LEXICON
The DFs proposed in this article are based upon several assumptions concerning
the L2 lexicon: lexical codification, intra- and intersign relations, linear versus
recursive models of lexical acquisition, lexical access and retrieval and controlled
versus automatic processing of lexical items.
Lexical Codification
L1 and L2 lexicons are composed of codified lexical items at the word level or
higher. A lexical item, or a lexeme, is “an item which functions as a single meaning unit, regardless of the number of orthographical words it contains” (Schmitt
& McCarthy, 1997, p. 329). Multiword items (e.g., phrases, idioms, and proverbs)
are often referred to as collocational structures, composed of items that often occur together (e.g., En boca cerrada no entran moscas. ‘Flies do not enter a closed
mouth.’= ‘Silence is golden.’).
Intra- and Intersign Relations
The L2 lexicon is acquired through the establishing of intra- and intersign connections (de Saussure, 1916) within and among linguistic signs in the mind of the
learner.
Intrasign Relations
Henricksen (1999) proposes that lexical development involves the incremental
mapping of various features onto an item via semantization/labeling and packaging. Semantization refers to intrasign relations, or the mapping (binding, Terrell,
1986) of meaning (signatum) onto form (signans). From a connectionist perspective (N. Ellis, 1994), this involves the strengthening and amplification of formmeaning connections. Packaging occurs when new features (e.g., pragmatic, sociolinguistic, contextual/dialectic, and metaphoric) and connotations are added
to a lexical item whose denotative meaning has already been partially acquired.
Most current CALL vocabulary activities involve the creation of these intrasign
connections between form and meaning.
Intersign Relations
The least studied aspect of the learner’s lexicon is the “depth-of-knowledge” dimension (Henricksen, 1999), or the structure of the student’s lexical knowledge,
that is, how different lexical items relate to one another (intersign relations).
Learners need optimal neurological networks to access lexical items efficiently,
achieved through the creation of “intentional links” and “sense relations” between
lexemes (see Aitchison, 1994). From a connectionist viewpoint, the L2 learner’s
500
CALICO Journal, Vol. 24, No. 3
mental lexicon is an “active network of meanings and phonological forms” (Goodfellow & Laurillard, 1994, p. 24). This neural network consists of links among
informational nodes that vary in strength according to the nature and quantity of
acoustic and conceptual features that they share (e.g., words in a given semantic field or derivational paradigm would have strong associations among them).
When a lexeme is activated, the activation simultaneously spreads to other linked
items (priming effects). For example, the activation of the lexeme rosa ‘rose’
could also activate ‘rosal’ ‘rose garden’ (Dell, 1986). Learners not only need to
understand paradigmatic relationships among related L2 lexical items (e.g., synonyms, antonyms, and hyponyms) but also need to be aware of syntagmatic codified patterns (collocations formed by strong links between certain lexical items) in
the target language. Since the production of an L2 lexical item depends in part on
its activation by related items, CALL software should provide ample opportunities for learners to activate associated lexemes via form/meaning relations.
Linear versus Recursive Models of Lexical Acquisition
Extrapolating from Gass and Selinker’s (2001) recursive model of SLA, we
propose that lexical retrieval (output) is not merely the end product of a static
linear model of vocabulary acquisition but, rather, constitutes an important part
of the dynamic and recursive process of lexical acquisition. Unfortunately, the
vocabulary learning model proposed by Goodfellow (1993) and Goodfellow and
Laurillard (1994) is linear in nature (reception → integration → retrieval) and
does not capture the recursive role of output (retrieval) in the acquisition process.2
Therefore, a recursive lexical model of vocabulary acquisition is needed to recognize that retrieval (output) plays a continuous role in the constant elicitation
and reception of new forms, their integration (via hypothesis testing, positive and
negative feedback, and negotiation of meaning) into the L2 lexical system and
the facilitation of their future retrieval. CALL vocabulary activities are especially
suited to work within this recursive model since they allow students to control
the amount of input and feedback they receive on their output and the number
of times they access or retrieve lexical items as they integrate them during the
acquisition process.
Lexical Access and Retrieval
Lexical knowledge is best conceptualized as a continuum between the ability to
recognize the meaning of a lexical item (lexical access) and the ability to use it
productively (lexical retrieval). Snellings, Van Gelderen, and de Glopper (2002)
propose that lexical access activities “should require only recognition of the words
and their properties, whereas [lexical retrieval] exercises can be more demanding,
involving actual production of the target words by learners” (p. 729).
Controlled versus Automatic Processing of Lexical Items
The speed at which learners go from reception to integration and retrieval of new
lexical items depends on their access to controlled vs. automatic processing (Shif-
Barbara A. Lafford, Peter A. Lafford, and Julie Sykes
501
frin & Schneider, 1977) of the target forms.
In controlled processing, the response is not yet learned (automatized), and
the stimulus must be temporarily held in working memory3 in order for memory
nodes to be activated or created. Memory consists of associated nodes that are
activated in sequence throughout the learning process. The optimum environment
for controlled processing to take place would be one in which distractions are kept
to a minimum and learners are able to take time to fully attend to the process. In
addition, feedback on learner L2 hypotheses would be available to learners during
this process so that they will notice interlanguage-L2 gaps and take the necessary
time to modify their output. Automatic processing occurs when a response is routinized through practice by the activation of associated nodes. These activation
patterns become a learned response that quickens over time and that is difficult to
alter at a later date.
A continuum exists between controlled and automatic processing (Schmidt,
1992) along which the learner moves with more L2 practice. Self-paced CALL
activities afford L2 learners the time they need for controlled processing of new
L2 lexical items (time that they may not have in class), so that the forms in question may become automatized as a result of learner-controlled frequent practice of
lexical access and retrieval activities.
Research Questions
Although we do not discount the hypothesis that some vocabulary learning may
take place subconsciously and implicitly (see Krashen, 1989; Gass, 1999; Nation,
1999), in this article we adopt the position taken by Hulstijn (1992) and N. Ellis
(1994) that the learning of vocabulary is enhanced by explicit instructional intervention. Therefore, the questions we will explore are the following:
• What DFs of second language learning software (based on research from
the field of second language acquisition and related disciplines) would
seem to facilitate lexical acquisition?
• To what extent do various examples of Spanish L2 CALL software reflect
the insights of this research?
• What logistical barriers exist to the application of research findings from
SLA and related fields to the creation of CALL materials?
DFs FOR LEXICAL CALL
In this section, 10 research-based DFs for the creation of CALL lexical activities
will be presented along with an evaluation of selected Spanish CALL software
products (textbook ancillaries as well as stand-alone products) vis-à-vis their adherence to or deviance from these features. The 10 DFs can be categorized under
three basic themes: the importance of context, input issues and depth of processing in L2 CALL lexical activities. In this review, certain Spanish CALL programs
and activities were selected for their ability to illustrate the application of these
DFs.
502
CALICO Journal, Vol. 24, No. 3
The Importance of Context for Lexical Acquisition
DF #1: New lexical items should be introduced in authentic cultural, sociolinguistic, and pragmatic contexts.
Over the last several decades the conceptualization of the integration of cultural
awareness into the foreign language curriculum has changed considerably. During most of the 20th century, the traditional dichotomy made by foreign language
pedagogues of Olympian (literary and artistic accomplishments—Big ‘C’ culture) versus hearthstone (beliefs, behavior, and values—Little ‘c’ culture) culture
(Brooks, 1971) relegated cultural awareness to a compartmentalized objective,
isolated from the actual task of learning the target language. Kramsch (1993) objected to this view of culture as an “expendable fifth skill” and proposed that “if
language is seen as social practice, culture becomes the very core of language
teaching” (p. 8). Her view of “language as social practice” is also reflected in the
national standards movement in which culture, consisting of “the philosophical
perspectives, the behavioral practices and the products—both tangible and intangible of a society” (1996, p. 43), is integrated with the other C’s (communication,
connections, comparisons, communities) to become an integral part of the language-learning process.
In order to foster awareness of the social practices in the target culture (C2),
learners must observe and critically analyze how NSs of the target language engage in social practices within authentic C2 contexts (Hall, 1999); this in-depth
analysis facilitates the mapping of new forms to new meanings and concepts within appropriate cultural, sociolinguistic, and pragmatic contexts and helps learners
avoid making naïve assumptions of equivalence between the native and target cultural systems (Mantle-Bromley, 1992). Multimedia programs can potentially play
a significant role in this effort, but the field of Spanish CALL software is strewn
with products with technically outstanding visuals that do not take advantage of
this opportunity (e.g., Rosetta Stone Spanish Latin America 1&2, TeLL Me More
Spanish, Live Action Spanish Interactive: TPR on a Computer). In an attempt to
cut costs and create a product in which “one size fits all,” publishers often use
the same pictures of people, places, and things for teaching several different languages.4
A notable exception is Transparent Language’s Learn Spanish Now (CD-ROM)
that introduces new vocabulary (e.g., points out the use of vale in Spain for ‘OK’)
in scripted dialogues that take place in various Spanish-speaking countries (Spain,
Puerto Rico, and Colombia) between the protagonist (a producer of commercials)
and NSs from those regions in various pragmatic contexts. Other examples of
Spanish CALL products that provide examples of authentic language use among
NSs include Paradoja, a CD-ROM containing an authentic documentary of the
Miss Universe Pageant in Peru in 1982 (including public commentary by Peruvians on the event—an “emic”5 approach to the target culture) and EuroTalk
Interactive Advanced Spanish: Movie Talk Spanish, an advanced-level DVD containing a television episode from the target culture (Querido Maestro).
Sociolinguistic research over the last four decades also needs to inform applied
Barbara A. Lafford, Peter A. Lafford, and Julie Sykes
503
linguists, CALL developers, and consumers. Studies carried out on regional and
social linguistic variation among native Spanish speakers need to be taken into account when deciding which dialects and sociolects to include in CALL programs.6
For instance, insights from recent work in Spanish L1 pragmatic variation across
dialects (García, 2004, 2007a, 2007b) should also be incorporated into functionally driven CALL activities.
Unfortunately, very few of the CALL programs reviewed incorporated models
of speech from several dialects of Spanish. On the other hand, some programs
(e.g., Learn Spanish Now) deliberately create opportunities for learners to listen
to speakers from various Spanish dialects. Moreover, in the video and textbook
sections on diferencias dialectales in Impresiones: Textbook and Companion
Website, for the first time in a first-year textbook, Spanish dialect differences are
described and students are asked to actively and critically analyze them. These
tasks are carried out to the website and CD-ROM that accompany the book. Nevertheless, we did not find Spanish CALL programs that focused on modeling and
teaching speech acts per se, nor did we find any that commented on pragmatic
variation among various regional varieties of Spanish.
Input Issues
DF #2: Learners use background knowledge to understand and access new lexical items.
Gass and Selinker (2001) note the important role that background knowledge
plays in the apperception and comprehension of input. According to schema theory (Bartlett, 1932; Rumelhart, 1980; Carrell & Eisterhold, 1983) learners rely
upon previously acquired structures of knowledge (schemata) to construct meaning from new texts. Whenever possible, CALL software should help establish
new links between new L2 information (lexical items) and previous knowledge
of target language vocabulary items within an authentic C2 cultural context (see
DF #1).
When schemata are composed of a series of events that prototypically characterize a set of actions (e.g., buying a plane ticket), the term “script” (Schank &
Abelson, 1977) is used. The powerful effect of scripts on a learner’s understanding of a new text partially explains why the use of narratives has been so effective
in the teaching of language (Bruner, 1996; MENO project); learners rely on their
understanding of narrative structure to understand and predict the actions of the
story and the meaning of unknown words.
Despite the importance of the use of background knowledge in the study of
second languages, our review of Spanish CALL software found few vocabulary
exercises that explicitly called upon learners’ prior knowledge to understand new
lexical items or access and practice lexical items already acquired. However, the
Quía website contains a vocabulary exercise from Imágenes, E-SAM & Electronic
Workbook, in which learners need to draw on background world knowledge in
order to retrieve the word (type) that categorizes a list of items (tokens). For example, learners are asked to come up with the word “supermercado” as the over-
504
CALICO Journal, Vol. 24, No. 3
all descriptive term for the following list: Safeway, Piggly Wiggley. Nevertheless,
while it is true that learners’ familiarity with these stores in their native (US) culture may help them to retrieve the overall concept of ‘supermarket’ = supermercado, this exercise could easily have been enhanced by including examples of
supermarkets from the C2 (e.g., Corte Inglés [Spain] or Carulla [Colombia]) so
that the learners begin to make C2 associations for that word. The use of narratives to teach Spanish can be found in Tesoros CD-ROM, Nuevos Destinos, Un
misterio en Toluca and Encuentros en español.
DF #3: Learners are provided with multimodal input (dual coding of audio/video
and written text/pictures) containing new lexical items to be acquired.
The effectiveness of multimodal input in language learning environments can be
explained by Mayer’s (1997) generative theory of multimedia learning, based
on Wittrock’s (1990) psychological generative theory and Paivio’s (1971) dual
coding theory. The latter theory proposes that a learner possesses two symbolic
systems: one dealing with verbal information and the other specializing in nonverbal information (e.g., objects or pictures). Dual coding theory proposes that
the two systems are interconnected and that representations in one system can be
activated by those in the other system. Thus, multiple (auditory and visual) pathways of retrieval of new vocabulary words are established due to the simultaneous
engagement of auditory (echoic) and visual (iconic) memory. Dual coding theory
also allows learners to process new L2 forms more deeply and to associate them
directly with images from the target culture, instead of merely linking the target
form to an equivalent L1 form. Research on the use of L2 captions (Markhan,
1989; Garza, 1991; Smith & Shen, 1992) has shown the effectiveness of multimodal input (simultaneous presentation of new L2 lexical items in oral and written [captions] modes) in foreign language teaching contexts.
Several examples of Spanish CALL software exist that incorporate multimedia
presentations of new vocabulary items. For instance in its Mira ‘Watch [and hear]’
mode, Live Action Spanish Interactive: TPR on a Computer provides learners
with short video clips that illustrate new lexical items in a given context (e.g., in
the “cleaning the house” lesson a man is seen carrying out various housecleaning
chores). However, learners can also choose the Mira y lee ‘Watch and read’ mode
and see the written text of the same auditory phrases they have already heard
given as TPR commands (e.g., Barre el piso. ‘Sweep the floor.’) while the video
is playing.
In addition, Rosetta Stone Spanish Latin America presents new vocabulary
by associating a spoken rendition of the new word with a picture of the item
in questions which can also be accompanied by a written representation of the
word. Instead of relying on L1-L2 translation associations for new vocabulary,
this program proposes to teach via a dynamic immersion method in which students learn “naturally,” the same way they acquired their native language, “by
directly associating words—written and spoken—with objects, actions and ideas
that convey meaning,” (Rosetta Stone Spanish, 2003b, p. 2) without depending
on “translation, lengthy explanations of grammar, or memorization drills” (p. 2).
Barbara A. Lafford, Peter A. Lafford, and Julie Sykes
505
In fact, explicit grammar explanations do not appear until Level 3. Although this
approach is partially supported by language-related research (e.g., the value of
multimodal presentations to teach vocabulary without the use of L1), the idea that
it is beneficial to withhold all explicit grammar explanations at beginning levels
of adult second language learning is not supported by research in the field.
The potential use of DVD technology (with L2 written captions to accompany the video) to exploit the use of multimodal presentations in foreign language
teaching contexts has just begun to be realized. As mentioned earlier, EuroTalk
Interactive Advanced Spanish: Movie Talk Spanish, an advanced-level Spanish
DVD CALL software product, is based on a C2 television program. Although its
use of full motion video can be very motivating for students, the high-end technical requirements to run this software (Ledgerwood, 2001) may put this program
out of reach of many foreign language students.
DF #4: New lexical items are made salient in the input.
The idea that saliency of L2 lexical items in the input facilitates their acquisition
is based on Schmidt’s (1993) noticing hypothesis, which states that learners must
attend to (notice) items in the input before they can be integrated into the L2
system. Gass and Selinker (2001) have incorporated this notion into their model
of second language acquisition by making a distinction between “apperceived”
(noticed) and “comprehended” (understood) input. Even though the research carried out on the effectiveness of enhanced input (e.g., written input in which certain lexical items have been highlighted with a different color or font) has been
inconclusive,7 Chapelle (1998) proposes highlighting (enhancing) certain parts of
the input in multimedia instructional materials to promote noticing (apperception)
by learners. VanPatten and Leeser’s (2006) review of the literature on textual enhancement points out that the research on this topic has focused on the highlighting and acquisition of grammatical forms and that enhancement of those forms in
the input may be only effective when accompanied by explicit instruction on the
grammar point in question. It is clear that more research on input enhancement
needs to be carried out, and expanded to include the study of the acquisition of
enhanced lexical items.
A good example of the use of enhanced input to highlight new vocabulary items
can be seen in TeLL Me More Spanish. In the section containing compartmentalized culture capsules in the form of written texts, keywords in the cultural passage
appear at the top of the reading passage and are also highlighted in black within
a blue text. Other examples of software with enhanced input features include En
busca de esmeraldas, a network-based activity in which the instructions given
to learners for the simulation (see DF #10) present important information in another color (blue) and larger font size [here, underlined] (Necesitas llegar hasta el
edificio y tomar el ascensor de la derecha), and Learn Spanish Now (CD-ROM)
in which the text for the phrase currently being uttered by a person in the video
dialogue is automatically highlighted in blue and contrasted with the rest of the
dialogue script that appears on the screen.
506
CALICO Journal, Vol. 24, No. 3
DF #5: Learners are encouraged to use a variety of resources to help with the
understanding of new words in context (e.g., dictionaries [L1 vs. L2], glosses,
and pictures).
Although research has shown that vocabulary is often acquired incidentally
through guessing from context while reading (Lee & Wolf, 1997), the use of various resources to facilitate lexical comprehension (e.g., dictionaries and glosses)
is effective in helping learners understand the meaning of a text (Laufer & Hill,
2000). Some scholars (Luppescu & Day, 1993; Knight, 1994) have noted a positive effect of the use of dictionaries on textual comprehension, even though the
look-up process may adversely affect their reading speed (Lantolf, Labarca and
den Tuinder, 1985). However, Hulstijn, Hollander, and Greidanus (1996) found
that incidental vocabulary learning is much higher when L2 readers have access to
the meanings of words through marginal glosses than through a dictionary. Several
scholars (Chun & Plass, 1996; Lomicka, 1998; Laufer & Hill, 2000; Al-Seghayer,
2001) have since found multimedia glosses (combinations of text, picture and
video) to be more effective for incidental vocabulary learning than glosses in just
one mode (textual, visual, or audio). (See DF #3 for a discussion of the positive
effects of multimedia on L2 acquisition.)
Every one of the Spanish CALL CD-ROM and DVD software programs we reviewed provided the learner with at least a bilingual (English/Spanish) dictionary
function. The Learn Spanish Now CD-ROM not only provides learners with an
L1 gloss of the word in question, but also includes an L1 translation of the entire
phrase in which the word is found in order for learners to understand the meaning of the word in a particular context. The Tesoros CD-ROM provides pictures
(drawings) to accompany the L1 glosses for L2 vocabulary words, while EuroTalk
Interactive Advanced Spanish: Movie Talk Spanish offers only still shots from the
DVD video (accessed by clicking on the word in question) to accompany words
in the vocabulary list. The Ciberteca CD-ROM provides a variety of options for
glosses: text (English and Spanish definitions), picture, and video glosses for students with different learning preferences (visual vs. audio).
Depth of Processing
DF #6: Learners engage in deep processing of new lexical items:
a. New lexical items are introduced and repeated in several different contexts
for learners’ deeper processing of lexemes and collocations.
b. Learners engage in complex lexical access activities that require applying mental effort and making inferences, rather than just providing simple,
discrete-point L1-L2 lexical associations.
The levels of processing framework (Craik & Lockhart, 1972) proposes that deeplevel processing of semantic information leads to better long term memory retention of the material. Due to the limitations of working memory and the “phonological loop” (Baddeley, 1986), “the component of working memory responsible
for the temporary storage of verbal information,” (Gathercole & Thorn, 1998, p.
Barbara A. Lafford, Peter A. Lafford, and Julie Sykes
507
145), learners can hold only a certain amount of information at a time; if pressured
by time or circumstance, a new lexeme will leave learners’ working memory before it can be processed, leaving only a trace of the item with no precise form
to retrieve. Wingfield, Lahar, and Stein (1989) propose that the durability of a
memory trace depends on the attention paid to it when first heard and how deeply
it was processed.
Connectionist theory (N. Ellis, 2002) proposes that depth of processing is related to the frequency of a lexical item in the input. Frequent processing of lexical
items leads to the strengthening of intra- and intersign associations in the neural
network and helps to establish those associations in the long-term memory of the
learner. Moreover, Snellings et al. (2002) propose that “repeated exposure may
reduce the cognitive effort involved in lexical retrieval in L2 contexts” (p. 728),
perhaps then allowing learners to expend their cognitive energies on processing
new lexical or grammatical information. N. Ellis (1994) and Wesche and Paribakht (2000) also affirm that the deep processing of vocabulary items (e.g., multiple exposures to a new lexical item in several different tasks) enhances lexical
acquisition.
Another determinant of the depth of processing of a lexical item is explained by
the mental effort hypothesis (Hulstijn, 1992); when learners expend more mental
effort processing new lexical items, they retain the material more effectively. For
instance, N. Ellis (1994) affirms the facilitating effect of inferring a word’s meaning from context (a skill that requires mental effort from the learner) on lexical
acquisition. In addition, Hulstijn (1992), Watanabe (1997), and Nagata (1999)
found that multiple-choice glosses (in which the learner had to weigh options to
guess the meaning of a word in context and, therefore, processed the word more
deeply) were more effective than single glosses that just provided the meaning of
the glossed item.
Several of the Spanish CALL software programs we reviewed presented and
worked with new vocabulary items within a given activity, but not often did we
find a conscious effort to recycle and reuse the same vocabulary in different activities either within a whole lesson or in other lessons. Often, vocabulary activities were compartmentalized (like the culture “capsules” already mentioned) and
were not integrated or recycled into multiple lexical or grammatical activities in
various lessons.
A notable exception to this generalization includes the presentation and processing of vocabulary in Live Action Spanish Interactive: TPR on a Computer, a
program that recycles the same vocabulary by working with video clips of people
performing a series of actions (scripts) as a response to a TPR command (e.g.,
Siéntate en tu escritorio. ‘Sit at your desk.’ in an office context). Learners can
strengthen new intra- and intersign relations that obtain between the new lexical
items presented in the commands by replaying the same video clips in several
different modes (mira = learners watch/hear video clips of actions; escucha =
learners match oral cue to picture from video clip; interactúa = learners click and
drag new lexical items according to oral cue; mira y lee = learners see video clip
and the written text of the oral cues; ordena = learners put elements of the “script”
508
CALICO Journal, Vol. 24, No. 3
in order using the same oral cues and pictures). Other examples of software that
spiral and recycle and reinforce vocabulary in several lexical access activities
include Rosetta Stone Spanish Levels 1&2, Caminos Multimedia CD-ROM and
Learn Spanish Now.
An example of a Spanish CALL activity that requires mental effort can be seen
in the Quía activity for ¿Sabías qué? in which learners first listen to an oral description of a situation (e.g., a student just did poorly on an exam) and then they
hear Ignacio sacó una mala nota en un curso importante. ‘Ignacio received a bad
grade in an important course.’ They have to make inferences about how that person is feeling by choosing between está deprimido ‘he is sad/depressed’ and está
contento ‘he is happy.’ Since neither the word deprimido nor contento appears
in the oral script, learners must use mental effort to make an inference about the
student’s state of mind.
DF #7: Learners focus on relations among L2 lexical items (synonyms, antonyms,
hyponyms, items in same semantic field, etc.) for expanding depth of knowledge
and understanding of L2 collocational possibilities in lexical access and lexical
retrieval modes.
Several scholars have noted that the focus on associations among lexical items
can strengthen intersign relations (Henricksen’s [1999] “depth of knowledge”).
Thus, creating L2 word associations aids memory, access and retrieval of these
lexical items, and helps to create L2 lexical schemata in the minds of learners.
In light of the facilitating effect of word associations on L2 lexical acquisition, learners should be given ample opportunities to access and retrieve lexical
items in activities that promote the categorical arrangement of that material. For
instance, both vocabulary grouping access activities (Allen & Crozier, 1992) and
semantic mapping retrieval activities (Morin & Goebel, 2001), in which learners
productively associate related words in schematic form, have been shown to facilitate lexical acquisition and retrieval.
Furstenberg, Levet, English, and Maillet’s (2001) report of the Cultura project
in a CMC environment demonstrated that learners need to be made aware that
associations between a word and related items in their L1 may differ greatly from
the L2 associations related to an “equivalent” word in the L2. In order to make
sure the L2-L2 associations that learners make are similar to those made by NSs
and are not based naïvely on L1 associations (DF #1), care should be taken to
present the L2 words together in authentic L2 cultural and pragmatic contexts. Ife,
Vives Boix, and Meara (2000) and Lantolf (1999) note the facilitating effects that
extended periods of living/working in the target culture have on the organization
of a learner’s lexicon along NS lines. However, multimedia CALL activities that
present lexical items in authentic C2 contexts can begin to make novice, intermediate, and advanced “at home” learners more aware of NS L2 word associations.
Although lexical association activities are not frequently found in Spanish
CALL programs, a few programs do provide this opportunity for the strengthening of L2 intersign relations. For instance, the Avance! online activities provide
production/retrieval exercises that have students create sentences that explain the
Barbara A. Lafford, Peter A. Lafford, and Julie Sykes
509
relationship between various lexical items: given the words infancia y vejez, students are asked to create sentences like La infancia es la primera etapa de la vida
y la vejez es la última. ‘Infancy is the first stage of life and old age is the last.’
The TeLL Me More Spanish program lets students group words according to
conceptual (words and topics) or formal (words and functions) properties but
simply presents lexically grouped words in an alphabetical list within a given
category in the glossary. In addition, Live Action Spanish Interactive: TPR on a
Computer contains video scripts in which antonyms are highlighted (e.g., in the
oficinista setting, learners are presented with both Aflójate la corbata. ‘Loosen
your tie.’ and Arréglate la corbata. ‘Fix your tie.’).
Even though paradigmatic word associations are treated in several Spanish
CALL programs, syntagmatic word collocations (e.g., formulas and language
“chunks” [idioms, proverbs]) are almost totally neglected.8 Connectionist theory
emphasizes the important role that the acquisition of word sequences plays in the
SLA process. For instance, N. Ellis (1996) proposes that “the attainment of fluent
comprehension and production, in both native (L1) and second (L2) languages,
involves the acquisition of memorized sequences of language” (p. 93). Weinert
(1995) emphasized the importance of collocational formulas for reducing cognitive processing and as a strategy to facilitate production.
Although our review of Spanish CALL software did find some programs that
provided multiple opportunities for students to access short chunks of material
(e.g., TPR commands in Live Action Spanish Interactive: TPR on a Computer and
directional phrases [a la derecha ‘on the right’] in En busca de esmeraldas), we
found no exercises that explicitly asked learners to reconstruct collocations. However, CALL activities could easily be created that require students to match the
first and last part of an L2 collocation, such as a proverb: Camarón que se duerme
… se lo lleva la corriente. ‘The shrimp that sleeps is taken away by the current.’
= ‘You snooze, you lose.’
DF #8: Learners produce new L2 lexical items (in isolation and in context) in oral
and written modes numerous times in various contexts for deeper processing.
The importance of production in the process of second language learning is assumed by most scholars in the field. For instance, Swain (1985), while acknowledging the role of comprehensible input (Krashen, 1985), proposed that comprehensible output serves “to provide opportunities for contextualized, meaningful
use, to test hypotheses about the target language, and to move the learner from a
purely semantic analysis of the language to a syntactic analysis of it” (p. 252).
Another function of output is to help learners develop automaticity (and increase control over previously internalized forms). As mentioned earlier, learners
progress from controlled to automatic processing of forms via frequent practice
(access and retrieval) with these items. Payne and Whitney (2002) contend that in
second language production “controlled processing appears to play a central role
in lexical access and articulation in a second language, at least until a high level
of proficiency has been achieved” (p. 12). One advantage of CALL is that it can
510
CALICO Journal, Vol. 24, No. 3
serve as a language “simulator” by providing retrieval activities and feedback on
that output to allow for controlled processing of new lexical items at the learner’s
own pace. As a result of frequent L2 output practice with these activities, the
learner’s production of lexical items becomes more automatic, and fluency is increased.
Although most of the vocabulary activities we reviewed in Spanish CALL software only involved access (recognition) of lexical items (e.g., click and drag,
multiple choice), several programs provide opportunities for learners to actually
produce new vocabulary items. For instance, the Quía activities for Dicho y hecho
contain a crossword puzzle in which learners use L2 cues (Están en el cielo. ‘They
are in the sky.’ Son blancas y grises. ‘They are white and gray.’) to activate the L2
target term nubes ‘clouds.’ The use of L2 clues in this retrieval activity allows for
contextualization and is very effective in establishing L2-L2 word relationships
via mental effort and deep processing. Also, feedback is given implicitly while
learners are working since the crossword puzzle forms are dependent upon one
another.
Although most programs do require students to retrieve lexical forms in production activities, they do not often provide opportunities for them to produce
the same newly acquired L2 lexical items in oral and written modes numerous
times in various contexts. An excellent example of a program that recycles new
vocabulary in various lexical access and retrieval activities is Learn Spanish Now.
In addition to introducing new vocabulary through the use of video-clip-scripted
conversations among NSs in authentic C2 settings, several vocabulary access
and retrieval activities are offered that focus on the deep processing of the same
lexical items, e.g., word and sentence dictations (accompanied by wave forms),
crosswords in which students fill in the crossword puzzle with words that are left
out of written accounts of the line of dialogue from a video clip from the original
dialogue, word unscrambling exercises accompanied by the video clip in which
the words are said in their correct order, ‘plug-n-play’ in which learners click and
drag appropriate words into the written script of the video clip that simultaneously
plays, ‘vocabulous’ (in which students are presented with a sentence containing
a blank “
, soy Andrés González” that students can fill in using cues from
the video clip containing the phrase Hola. Soy Andrés González and the L1 translation of the whole phrase ‘Hello, I’m Andres Gonzalez.’). Of the programs we
reviewed, Learn Spanish Now constitutes the best variety of access and retrieval
Spanish CALL lexical activities for the same vocabulary items presented within
authentic Hispanic contexts.
DF #9: Learners receive feedback on hypotheses about new L2 lexical items to
assist with noticing of learner lexical errors (the interlanguage-L2 gap) and error
correction.
a. Learners need multiple chances to correct errors and to negotiate meaning.
b. Feedback is graduated, contingent, naturalistic, and varied.
Barbara A. Lafford, Peter A. Lafford, and Julie Sykes
511
The importance of communicative interaction in the acquisition of a second
language has been noted by various scholars over the past few decades (the interaction hypothesis developed by Hatch, 1978; Gass & Varonis, 1994; Long &
Robinson, 1998). In Gass and Selinker’s (2001) recursive model of language processing, the negotiation of meaning (or form)9 assists in the conversion of input
to intake; this negotiation takes place in order to bridge communication gaps that
occur in interactions between learners and expert L2 speakers.
Research shows that negotiation between NSs and nonnative speakers (NNSs)
typically focuses on lexical meaning, rather than on morphological aspects of
words (Tudini, 2003; R. Ellis, Tanaka, & Yamakazi, 1994). However, even though
de la Fuente (2002) reports that the research studies regarding the effectiveness
of negotiation on vocabulary acquisition have reported contradictory findings, her
own study found that negotiation was important for the comprehension and acquisition of L2 vocabulary.
In addition, in order to have the learner exert mental effort (DF #6) for deeper
processing of the L2 material, learners should have multiple chances to correct
their errors. As learners continuously make hypotheses, get feedback, and modify
their hypotheses in CALL lexical access and retrieval activities, they become
more aware of the forms in question and the role they play in the target language
system. Furthermore, feedback on both oral and written output is necessary for
the development of both types of production skills. Finally, learners should have
a chance to produce modified output (R. Ellis & He, 1999) in order to reinforce
correct forms during the controlled processing activities.
While in a classroom setting, learners have easy access to interlocutors (instructors or other students) with which to negotiate meaning, CALL environments
present certain limitations to the amount and type of interaction that can take
place. Although asynchronous and synchronous CMC does allow L2 learners to
interact with each other or with an instructor to negotiate meaning (Chapelle,
1998; Blake, 2000; Payne & Whitney, 2002), this is more difficult to achieve in
stand-alone CALL environments in which learners are interacting with a CALL
software program instead of with another human being. Nevertheless, all of the
Spanish software products that we reviewed did, at least, provide learners with
feedback on their L2 hypotheses in lexical access and retrieval activities.
The Spanish CALL software reviewed provided mostly immediate, discretepoint positive and negative feedback, which can easily be programmed and thus
allow the computer to serve as a tireless, efficient, and inexpensive tutor. For
instance, the ancillary Quía-based activities we reviewed for several textbooks
uniformly provided immediate explicit correction of learners’ incorrect choice
(e.g., the click-and-drag activities that allowed the correct answer to “stick” to the
targeted space while disallowing this for incorrect choices).
Within a sociocultural framework based on the work of Vygotsky (1978), Aljaafreh and Lantolf (1994) also propose that feedback to learners be graduated
and contingent, that is, instead of immediately providing the correct answer, interlocutors can provide small hints to learners when necessary, so that learners can
draw upon their own resources to correct themselves within the Zone of Proximal
512
CALICO Journal, Vol. 24, No. 3
Development. Ideally, feedback should also be naturalistic and varied, to emulate
interlocutor reactions to learner output in real-life interactions with the L2 and to
prevent learners from disengaging with the exercise if feedback always uses the
same phrases (e.g., “Try again”).
An example of a program offering graduated and contingent feedback is Nuevos
Destinos. In the multiple-choice written comprehension activities, this program
provides a simple spoken no or trátalo otra vez ‘try again’ to a wrong answer and
then proceeds to give an oral clue (based on the narrative already seen and read) to
learners so that they can make the correct choice. If learners still do not choose the
right answer on the next try, the original text containing the information required
to answer correctly is provided, along with another spoken phrase hazlo de nuevo
‘do it again.’ This provision of progressively more explicit feedback clues instead
of explicit correction also requires students to exert mental effort for deeper processing.
Even though most feedback in the Spanish CALL software programs is given to access (e.g., matching or clicking and dragging such as in Quía activities)
or predictable written retrieval (output) activities (e.g., fill ins or dictations) the
most innovative types of feedback are seen in oral activities. The Learn Spanish
Now program provides feedback (wave forms [amplitude] and pitch [frequency]
curves) on the pronunciation of repeated phrases so that learners can check their
own production against that of the model. In addition to allowing self-monitoring,
Learn Spanish Now also uses speech recognition software to give students general
feedback on the quality of their pronunciation using an analogue meter with three
categories (keep practicing/good job/wow!). The Rosetta Stone Spanish Latin
America: Levels 1&2 software allows learners to record their voice and compare
this “voiceprint” (consisting of pitch, emphasis [syllable stress], and form [high
and low sounds] indicators) to the NS model.
An excellent example of speech recognition in Spanish CALL software is the
program TeLL Me More Spanish that not only gives feedback (wave forms and
pitch curves) to students on their pronunciation of lexical items, but also goes
beyond asking students to simply repeat known phrases and requires that students
make intelligent choices. For example, the program presents a picture of an object
(e.g., pair of pants) with three possible words with which it could be labeled (e.g.,
los vestidos ‘dresses,’ los pantalones ‘pants,’ and los trajes ‘suits’). In the picture/word association section of the vocabulary workshop, learners merely click
on the right word to select it, but, in another activity (picture/word association of
the oral workshop), learners actually pronounce the word that corresponds to an
image and the computer gives them feedback to indicate whether the correct form
was pronounced. If students pronounce the correct form, it turns green; if they
pronounce one of the two other forms or grossly mispronounce the correct form,
the forms turn red. If students pronounce a form not on the list, the phrase “I do
not understand you” appears in red at the top of the screen. In the dialogue activity
in the oral and lesson workshops, TeLL Me More Spanish also provides opportunities for students to interact orally with the program and have the computer provide
appropriate rejoinders to their choice of answers to its questions.10 Thus, students’
Barbara A. Lafford, Peter A. Lafford, and Julie Sykes
513
responses control the direction of the conversation with the disembodied voice of
a NS removed from any particular social context.
Going a step further, Learn to Speak Spanish requires learners to interact with
an image of a NS on screen who looks directly at them and asks a realistic question (e.g., a waiter asks “What would you like?”) within an authentic C2 cultural
context. Learners reply to the stimulus question by orally recording one of the two
predictable choices (lobster or wine). Thus, these two CALL programs (TeLL Me
More Spanish and Learn to Speak Spanish) use speech recognition to move the
dialogues along in accordance with the answers given by learners. These high-end
speech recognition capabilities (using voice commands to control the direction of
the activities in CALL programs) constitute the kind of cutting-edge CALL technology that will open the eyes of instructors and administrators to the possibilities
of simulated communication that CALL can provide.
Another limitation of CALL software is the lack of ability of these programs
to respond to spontaneous learner output that does not “match” anything that the
programmers have anticipated. Therefore, instructors should have students seek
out opportunities to use CMC to correspond with each other using new lexical
items in various creative contexts. One example of Spanish CALL software that
does involve real CMC communication with another interlocutor is Un misterio
en Toluca. In this program, students participate in information gap activities with
another learner through CMC in order to complete the exercises and solve the
mystery. Although not involving CMC, En busca de esmeraldas encourages students to interact and speak with each other in the L2 to find a missing document
during a computer simulation exercise (see discussion in DF #10).
DF #10: Learner engages in task-based activities to practice (access and retrieve),
reinforce and integrate new lexical items into his/her interlanguage system.
Task-Based Language Teaching (TBLT) (Long, 1985) requires students to focus
on the completion of practical real-world tasks rather than on isolated vocabulary
lists or on decontextualized linguistic structures. Willis (1996) defines a task as “a
goal-oriented activity in which learners use language to achieve a real outcome. In
other words, learners use whatever target language resources they have in order to
solve a problem, do a puzzle, play a game or share and compare experiences” (p.
53). The tasks learners are asked to perform in TBLT should be relevant to their
needs as defined by their roles in a given learning scenario.
A focus on task (over text) as the level of analysis and the notion of “learning by
doing” (based on the principle of situated cognition11 [Brown, Collins, & Duguid,
1989]) constitute 2 of the 10 methodological principles (instructional DFs) for
CALL proposed by Doughty and Long (2003). As in real life, students engaged in
the performance of tasks focus on meaning and often utilize both receptive (listening and reading) and productive (speaking and writing) skills. Through interaction
with others in the performance of collaborative tasks, learners are motivated to
form and test hypotheses (to convert input into intake) and receive valuable feedback that will help them integrate new material into their L2 systems in simulated
real-world C2 contexts.
514
CALICO Journal, Vol. 24, No. 3
An excellent example of Spanish CALL that incorporates TBLT in a simulation
environment is En busca de esmeraldas, developed at the University of Hawaii by
González-Lloret. In her 2003 article, she explains the program in great detail and
shows how it incorporates all of Doughty and Long’s (2003) 10 methodological
principles and Chapelle’s (1998) developmental principles for multimedia CALL.
The En busca de esmeraldas program involves students in a 3-D computer simulation of a real-world task in which they are hired to find a document in an office
at the University of Hawaii. The students have the option of accepting or rejecting
the job in writing (electronic letter). If they accept the job they are given (oral or
written) instructions by a Spanish NS which they follow to find the document (a
hidden map). The students are given the options of working as individuals, listening to or reading the directions given to them as they navigate a 3-D simulation
through an office building, or in pairs, communicating in Spanish. Since one student has the instructions while his/her partner navigates through the building, this
activity constitutes an information gap activity that helps to promote negotiation
of meaning among interlocutors (Pica, Kanagy, & Falodun, 1993). Although the
program contains state-of-the-art technology (3-D computer simulations), it is unfortunate that this high-tech simulation could not have taken place in a university
in the Spanish-speaking world, where learners could have acquired directional
phrases in a more culturally authentic context (DF #1).
As mentioned earlier, Un misterio en Toluca, an Internet-based murder mystery,
asks students to adopt the identity of a person in the town where the murder occurred and engage in specific tasks (using evidence found in police reports and
city hall records on the accompanying web site) in an information gap activity.
Students communicate with each other via e-mail to look at all the evidence and
solve the mystery.
Summary
Our review of several Spanish CALL programs has revealed various levels of application of available research from several related fields (e.g., second language
acquisition, cognitive psychology, psycholinguistics, and sociolinguistics). In our
review, we noted a wide variety of quality among programs as well as within a
given program. Often it seems as though the activities were created in piecemeal
fashion, with several people working on various parts of a CALL program without communicating with each other about the overall purpose or cogency of the
activities.
Most of the ancillary web-based (Quía, Hot Potatoes) vocabulary exercises
utilize traditional discrete-point activities (e.g., click and drag, multiple choice,
matching, fill ins, dictations, word groupings) with explicit correction feedback.
These types of web-based activities are very common, in part because they are
easy and inexpensive to program and create (without video, animation, or multimedia), do not require high-end user hardware capabilities, are self-correctable,
and focus on isolated lexical items at the word or phrase level. This emphasis on
short segments of language is not surprising since most web-based ancillaries accompany first- and second-year language-teaching texts where learners are work-
Barbara A. Lafford, Peter A. Lafford, and Julie Sykes
515
ing at the novice and intermediate levels on the ACTFL scale. In addition, these
exercises focus mostly on the forming of intrasign (form-meaning) connections
rather than intersign relationships (word associations) and require lexical access
(recognition) more often than lexical retrieval (written or oral). It should also be
noted that these activities are mainly used to practice vocabulary already learned
in class using the textbooks for which they serve as ancillaries.
The multimedia stand-alone programs we reviewed were able to present new
vocabulary to learners using visuals (pictures and videos). However, many of the
really high-end, technologically sophisticated programs that used full-motion
video, 3-D computer simulations, and/or speech recognition neglected to present
and practice the new material in task-based activities or in authentic C2 contexts
(TeLL Me More Spanish, Rosetta Stone Spanish Latin America, Live Action Spanish Interactive: TPR on a Computer, En busca de esmeraldas). In fact, several
companies save money and sacrifice authenticity by using a “cookie cutter approach” to the production of L2 software, in which the same pictures or videos
are used in programs to teach several different languages.12 In addition, only a few
Spanish CALL programs actually incorporated CMC communication or NNSNNS oral interaction to negotiate meaning as an essential part of the activities (Un
misterio en Toluca, En busca de esmeraldas).
Thus, although language-related research is readily available, the insights from
this scholarship do not seem to be implemented on a grand scale by commercial
language learning software developers. The question then arises: What logistical
barriers exist to the application of research findings from SLA and related fields
to the creation of CALL materials?
Barriers to Application
We propose that barriers to the application of language-related research to CALL
products are fundamentally related to three factors: (a) failure to draw upon specialized intellectual capital, (b) commercial publishers’ bottom line, and (c) lack
of end-user access capabilities. In this paper we are defining specialized intellectual capital as the wisdom found mostly in the form of active SLA researchers
who are avid readers of language-related research. The applications of the insights
of such scholars is seen in innovative CD-ROM programs such as Learn Spanish Now by Transparent Language and by two CD-ROM programs developed
and distributed by McGraw-Hill, Tesoros and Nuevos Destinos.13 The influence
of informed scholarship is also seen in the En busca de esmeraldas program, a
small-scale project created at the University of Hawaii by scholars well versed in
language-related research.
However, evidence of the use of such specialized intellectual capital is sometimes not as evident in Spanish CALL products created by companies that are
not normally in the foreign language textbook publishing business and appear
to lack intimate ties with SLA scholars who could provide insights into possible
pedagogical implications of language-related research. For instance, Fairfield
Language Technologies’ Rosetta Stone Spanish Latin America, and Auralog’s
516
CALICO Journal, Vol. 24, No. 3
TeLL Me More Spanish, have outstanding technical infrastructure (e.g., excellent
graphics, videos, pictures, and speech recognition software), but these products
do not incorporate a number of the aforementioned research-based insights (e.g.,
the need for culturally authentic, task-based activities) that informed SLA scholars might have given them.14
One major factor contributing to the dearth of available intellectual capital is
the lack of recognition that CALL software development receives from institutions of higher learning during the faculty tenure and promotion evaluation process (Garrett & Liddell, 2004). All too often, Assistant and Associate Professors
are not rewarded professionally for the number of hours invested in the creation
of good, research-based CALL materials. Thus, although more foreign language
teachers are incorporating Internet technologies and other CALL materials into
their teaching, not enough sound, state-of-the-art online instructional materials
are being produced by scholars in SLA or applied linguistics since they need to
conform to more traditional expectations regarding “good scholarship” (articles
published in refereed journals) at their home institutions.
Another barrier to the application of research insights to CALL development
has to do with the publishers’ “bottom line.” Textbook publishers often make pedagogical decisions based on financial factors rather than on research findings. For
instance, several major publishers hire foreign language instructors to create discrete-point exercises in Quia or in Hot Potatoes. These web-based CALL activities are inexpensive and easy to produce, but they are limited in their ability to use
multimedia or deal with creative output from students. The creation of ancillary
CALL materials is mostly limited by publishers to true-false, multiple-choice,
fill-in, and matching formats without any “bells and whistles” such as intelligent
(adaptable) feedback. These features might require more complex platforms that
(a) would require more company support and (b) might not be accessible to or
affordable by many potential end users. Thus, CALL features that have been empirically proven to be effective (e.g., multimodal/multimedia presentations of NS
interchanges in authentic cultural contexts, audio and video clips, picture/video
glosses) would render the software product too expensive for many institutions
to adopt. By keeping the CALL activities simple, publishers are able to offer Internet-based ancillary activities to customers with a minimum investment of the
company’s time and money.
The type of feedback offered by most CALL programs is also rather limited
due to the cost of researching and developing prototypes of materials incorporating artificial intelligence (AI) and natural language processing (NLP) capabilities. These capabilities (AI and NLP) could make feedback more graduated and
contingent (e.g., providing metalinguistic information for students to self-correct
a particular error) or could deal more effectively with open-ended spontaneous
student speech. As a result, student feedback is usually confined to accepting or
rejecting anticipated preprogrammed answers.
This lack of ability to deal with spontaneous student speech is also a limitation
with most speech recognition foreign language software. Even technologically
sophisticated programs such as TeLL Me More Spanish, Rosetta Stone’s Spanish
Barbara A. Lafford, Peter A. Lafford, and Julie Sykes
517
Latin America Levels 1 & 2 and Learn Spanish Now still respond to students’
pronunciation of predictable, short phrases or words by providing wave forms
and intonation patterns or by indicating that the student has correctly identified a
lexical item. Even the programs that allow students to control the direction of the
program orally (e.g., TeLL Me More Spanish and Learn to Speak Spanish) give
students only preprogrammed choices to do so.
Foreign language publishers’ “bottom line” makes them reluctant to develop
prototypes for CALL programs containing “bells and whistles” (e.g., multimedia
or more sophisticated software incorporating artificial intelligence) when those
programs are only ancillary activities to textbooks or are used to teach languages
that do not attract a large number of students. However, some publishers are willing to take risks and create more cutting-edge stand-alone prototypes and invest
more heavily in these activities in CD-ROM or DVD formats to be used for large
first- or second-year language programs (e.g., Spanish, where there is likely to be
a return on their investment). Nevertheless, as we have seen, sometimes publishers sacrifice cultural authenticity for the ability to recycle their visuals to teach
several languages (see DF #1). We would, therefore, encourage more publishers
to work with foreign language instructors to seek outside grant money in order to
develop research-informed, culturally authentic software prototypes that can be
tested in the marketplace and eventually developed into quality software products
(e.g., McGraw-Hill worked with the Annenberg Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the WGBH Educational Foundation to create Nuevos Destinos, and
the Tesoros was jointly funded by the Junta de Castilla y León and Boecillo Editora Multimedia and is distributed by McGraw-Hill).
Working collaboratively and seeking funding to develop prototypes would also
facilitate the creation of more multimedia software with artificial intelligence
components for helping students reach advanced levels of proficiency. Advanced
learners need to be exposed to advanced-level authentic materials (e.g., target
culture films or television) and need to produce and receive feedback on their
production of extended spontaneous paragraph-level discourse. However, at present, this is only feasibly accomplished through interaction with NSs or instructors
via CMC and face-to-face interactions. In addition, the high cost of copyright
permissions to incorporate clips from contemporary films make it very difficult
for publishers to utilize them in CALL programs. Perhaps seeking out foreign
language films that are currently in the public domain or that come from countries
with more liberal copyright laws than the US would aid this endeavor.
Thus, even though professionals in the field of foreign language teaching and
research (Byrnes, 2002) tell us that functional professional L2 proficiency is
needed for our citizens in the 21st century, publishers serving the US market are
faced with financial barriers and often do not see a large return on their investment in creating advanced-level software for upper-division university classes,
which have fewer students and normally have no laboratory component. However, since the linguistic marketplace (e.g., the fields of translation and interpretation
for commercial, defense, legal, and medical purposes) demands that tomorrow’s
workforce reach high levels of advanced L2 proficiency, educators and publishers
518
CALICO Journal, Vol. 24, No. 3
must find ways to work with the public and private funding organizations to create
prototypes of more advanced level CALL software.15
The third major factor creating barriers between research findings and their application is the lack of end-user access to high-end technology to use technologically sophisticated CALL software. This lack of access is due to a lack of end-user
resources, support costs, and compatibility issues. Publishers know that not all
institutions of higher learning have state-of-the-art computer labs dedicated to
the learning of foreign languages. In addition, many students attending state universities may not have high-end computer resources at home, either. As a result,
publishers tend to create materials in platforms requiring the lowest technological
common denominator (web-based) in order to sell more of their product to large
state university foreign language programs with thousands of students in lowerdivision language courses. Even though more and more institutions are upgrading
their computer capability and have machines that can support DVDs containing
foreign language video, the technology is now moving toward streaming media
environments. Even if universities do have the high-end media server hardware
necessary to provide audio and video streams, the licensing to provide interactive
(two-way) audio and video can cost several thousand dollars per year.
Another factor that affects student access deals with the compatibility of hardware and software platforms. Instructors sometimes find that there are audio and
video hardware driver and configuration issues to overcome when trying to play
CD-ROMs, DVDs, or streaming media in both Macintosh and PC environments.
Web-based activities are easier to access, but problems sometimes occur with differences in browser versions, Java versions, video player plug-ins, and the ability
for some machines to handle QuickTime, RealPlayer, Windows Media Player,
which are always prompting users to install a newer version or a security upgrade.
Therefore, to minimize support issues, some publishers prefer to create activities
with minimal platform requirements (e.g., no animation, audio, or video). In addition, creativity in CALL development is sometimes constrained by publishers
who require strict discrete-point formatting (e.g., true/false, multiple choice, fill
ins, and matching) of web-based activities in order to maximize the compatibility
of CALL activities and course management programs such as Blackboard and
WebCT. Thus, publishers want to minimize investment in developing complex
CALL materials but still want control over what is produced.
To conclude, the gap between language-related research findings and practical
application of those insights to the development of Spanish CALL software seems
to be the result of a lack of resources: specialized intellectual capital, the high cost
(for publishers and consumers alike) of creating technologically sophisticated and
culturally authentic language learning programs, and the lack of availability of
high-end hardware and expensive licensing contracts for educational institutions.
In order to remedy this situation, there needs to be more communication between
researchers in language-related fields and software developers that enables them,
for example, to apply for curriculum development grants to develop cutting-edge
prototypes of CALL software grounded in language-related research. In addition,
universities can volunteer to be beta test sites so that their language students at
Barbara A. Lafford, Peter A. Lafford, and Julie Sykes
519
all levels can benefit from cutting-edge technological innovations in CALL software. Informed university administrations should also be willing to supplement
income from lab fees to help pay for support contracts for high-end CALL software grounded in the latest research from language-related fields.
Although it is true that software development that incorporates language-related research findings is a costly, major undertaking, the informed market demands
it, publishers need to plan for it, and educational consumers need to budget for it.
Referring back to the title of this article, this “bridging of the gap (trecho)” between research (lo dicho = ‘what is said’) and implementation (lo hecho = ‘what
is done’) is necessary in order for Spanish CALL software products to be truly
effective in facilitating the second language acquisition process.
NOTES
See Lafford, Collentine, and Karp (2003) for a critical review of research on Spanish L2
lexical acquisition.
1
Readers are invited to compare VanPatten and Cadierno’s (1993) linear model of SLA
(input → intake → developing system → output) with Gass and Selinker’s (2001) recursive, nonlinear model, in which output plays an important role in the conversion of apperceived input into comprehended input and input into intake via the use of communication
strategies and hypothesis testing (apperceived input → comprehended input → intake →
integration → output [output re-enters the model between apperceived and comprehended
input and between input and intake]).
2
Payne and Whitney (2002) define working memory as “an individual’s capacity for temporarily maintaining verbal and visual-spatial information in memory and for performing judgment or executive functions based on changing conditions in one’s immediate
environment”(p. 9). SLA research (Gathercole & Baddeley, 1989; Papagno, Valentine, &
Baddeley, 1991) shows that verbal working memory capacity predicts L2 vocabulary development.
3
This tendency was also noted by Spinelli and Siskin (1992) for other foreign language
materials.
4
The “-etic” vs. “-emic” dichotomy was characterized by Pike (1967) in the following
manner: “the etic viewpoint studies behavior from outside of a particular system, and as
an essential initial approach to an alien system. The emic viewpoint results from study
behaviors as from inside the system” (p. 37).
5
Numerous sociolinguistic studies have been carried out over the last three decades on
linguistic features that distinguish the ways in which male and female native Spanish
speakers from various socioeconomic backgrounds and age brackets communicate. See,
for example, Silva Corvalán (2001) and the proceedings of the Asociación de Lingüística y
Filología de América Latina and Hispanic Linguistics conferences.
6
See Leow (2001) and VanPatten and Leeser (2006), for a discussion of the effectiveness
of enhanced input.
7
8
Nesselhauf and Tschichold (2002) found this same lacuna in EFL CALL.
520
CALICO Journal, Vol. 24, No. 3
Lyster (1998) distinguishes between negotiation of meaning and negotiation of form.
While Pica, Holliday, Lewis, and Morgenthaler (1989, p. 65) propose that the latter has
a primarily conversational function “to resolve communication breakdowns and to work
toward mutual comprehension,” Lyster and Ranta (1997, p. 42) suggest a more didactic
function for the negotiation of form: “the provision of corrective feedback that encourages
self-repair involving accuracy and precision and not merely comprehensibility.” Since the
computer is very good at comparing student-generated forms to a model answer and is extremely limited in its ability to provide conceptual feedback to spontaneous student output,
CALL programs are probably more useful for negotiating form than meaning.
9
10
For a detailed review of TeLL Me More Spanish see Lafford (2004).
Brown, Collins, and Duguid (1989) discuss the principle of situated cognition as follows:
“The activity in which knowledge is developed and deployed … is not separable from or
ancillary to learning and cognition … . Situations might be said to co-produce knowledge
through activity. Learning and cognition … are fundamentally situated” (p. 32).
11
It is essential to establish an important distinction between stand-alone programs and
CALL activities that are ancillaries to textbooks. The programs which stand alone must
contain many more essential DFs since they are the only means of instruction. On the other
hand, the discrete-point web-based ancillary textbook activities may only focus on more
mechanical techniques of lexical development after the new items have been presented and
practiced in class or in the regular textbook activities.
12
While Tesoros CD-ROM is essentially a stand-alone course, the CD-ROM for Nuevos
Destinos is meant to serve as an ancillary to a video series and printed materials.
13
To their credit, Rosetta Stone has shown increasing interest in getting feedback on their
products from informed SLA scholars in the field (personal communication from company
representatives at the 2004 CALICO conference).
14
15
Two CALL programs that do serve the advanced level market are Rosetta Stone Spanish
Latin America Level 3 (still in Beta mode at the time this article was written) and EuroTalk
Interactive Advanced Spanish: Movie Talk Spanish, which have been discussed earlier.
However, both programs seem to be aimed at the business and professional market rather
than universities (e.g., Rosetta Stone is widely advertised at airports and in flight magazines, and Ledgerwood’s (2001) review of EuroTalk Interactive Advanced Spanish notes
its focus on learners who are business professionals and tourists.
REFERENCES
Aitchison, J. (1994). Words in the mind: An introduction to the mental lexicon (2nd ed.).
Oxford: Blackwell.
Aljaafreh, A., & Lantolf, J. P. (1994). Negative feedback as regulation and second language
learning in the zone of proximal development. The Modern Language Journal,
78 (4), 465-83.
Allen, P. A., & Crozier, L. C. (1992). Age and ideal chunk size. Journal of Gerontology,
47 (1), 47-51.
Al-Seghayer, K. (2001). The effect of multimedia annotation modes on L2 vocabulary
acquisition: A comparative study. Language Learning & Technology, 5 (1), 202232. Retrieved February 14, 2007, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol5num1/AlSeghayer/default.html
Barbara A. Lafford, Peter A. Lafford, and Julie Sykes
521
Atkinson, D. (2002). Toward a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisition.
The Modern Language Journal, 86 (4), 525-545.
Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: A study in experimental and social psychology. New
York: Macmillian.
Blake, R. (2000). Computer mediated communication: A window on L2 Spanish interlanguage. Language Learning & Technology, 4 (1), 120-136. Retrieved February
14, 2007, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol4num1/blake
Blake, R. J., Blasco, J., & Hernández, C. Tesoros CD-ROM. (2002). New York: McGrawHill.
Blake, R., & Zyzik, E. (2003). Who’s helping whom?: Learner/heritage speakers’ networked discussions in Spanish. Applied Linguistics, 24 (4), 519–544.
Bretz, M. L., Dvorak, T., Kirschner, R., Bransdorfer, C., & Kihet, C. (2004). Avance! Intermediate Spanish: Online cuaderno de práctica (2nd ed.). New York: McGrawHill. http://books.quia.com
Brooks, N. (1971). A guest editorial: Culture—A new frontier. Foreign Language Annals,
5 (1), 54-61.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18 (1), 32-42.
Bruner, J. S. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Byrnes, H. (2002). Toward academic-level foreign language abilities: Reconsidering foundational assumptions, expanding pedagogical options. In B. L. Leaver & B. Shekhtman (Eds.), From advanced to distinguished: Developing professional-level
language proficiency (pp. 35-61). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Carrell, P., & Eisterhold, T. (1983). Schema theory and ESL reading pedagogy. TESOL
Quarterly, 17 (4), 553-73.
Chapelle, C. (1998). Multimedia CALL: Lessons to be learned from research on instructed
SLA. Language Learning & Technology, 2 (1), 22-34. Retrieved February 14,
2007, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol2num1/article1/index.html
Chun, D., & Plass, J. (1996). Effects of multimedia annotations on vocabulary acquisition.
The Modern Language Journal, 80 (2), 183-198.
Chun, D., & Plass, J. (1999). Ciberteca [CD-ROM]. New York: Nonce Publishing Consultants, Ltd.
Craik, F., & Lockhart, R. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11 (4), 671-684.
de la Fuente, M. J. (2002). Negotiation and oral acquisition of L2 vocabulary: The roles of
input and output in the receptive and productive acquisition of words. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 24 (1), 81-112.
de Saussure, F. (1916). Cours de linguistique générale. n. p.: Payot.
Dawson, L. M., Dawson, A. C., & Cruz, G. (2003). Dicho y hecho online activities manual (7th ed.). New York: Wiley Publishing. http://books.quia.com/servlets/quia.
course.ui.take.TakeCourse?tagBookId=7537&tagTakeBookMode=1
Dell, G. (1986). A spreading activation theory of retrieval in sentence production. Psychological Review, 93 (3), 283-321.
522
CALICO Journal, Vol. 24, No. 3
Doughty, C., & Long, M. (2003). Optimal psycholinguistic environments for distance foreign language learning. Language Learning & Technology, 7 (3), 50-80. Retrieved February 14, 2007, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num3/doughty/default.
html
Ellis, N. (1994). Vocabulary acquisition: The implicit ins and outs of explicit cognitive
mediation. In N. Ellis (Ed.), Implicit and explicit learning of languages (pp. 211282). New York: Academic Press.
Ellis, N. (1996). Phonological memory, chunking, and points of order. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 18 (1), 91-126.
Ellis, N. (2002). Frequency effects in language processing: A review with implications for
theories of implicit and explicit language acquisition. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 24 (2), 143-188.
Ellis, R., & He, X. (1999). The roles of modified input and output in the incidental acquisition of word meanings. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 21 (2),
285-301.
Ellis, R., Tanaka, Y., & Yamakazi, A. (1994). Classroom interaction, comprehension and
L2 vocabulary acquisition. Language Learning, 44 (3), 449-486.
EuroTalk interactive advanced Spanish: Movie talk Spanish [DVD]. (n. d.). London: EuroTalk. http://www.eurotalk.com/Library/fmpro?-db=web_prod.fp5&-lay=web&format=/US_pages/product.html&productid=AKG5005&-find
Furstenberg, G., Levet, S., English, K., & Maillet, K. (2001). Giving a virtual voice to
the silent language of culture. Language Learning & Technology, 5 (1), 55-102.
Retrieved from February 14, 2007, fromhttp:// llt.msu.edu/vol5num1/fursten
berg/default.pdf
García, C. (2004). Coercion and cooperation: A case study of Argentinean reprimands and
responses to reprimands. In R. Márquez-Reiter & M. E. Placencia (Eds.), Current trends/advances in the pragmatics of Spanish (pp. 231-264). London: Benjamins.
García, C. (2007a). The importance of establishing and maintaining solidarity: A case
study of Argentinean invitations. In M. E. Placencia & C. García (Eds.), Politeness in the Spanish-speaking world (pp. 261-301). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
García, C. (2007b). Politeness studies in Venezuela and Cuba: An overview. In M. E. Placencia & C. García (Eds.), Politeness in the Spanish-speaking world (pp. 91104). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Garrett, N., & Liddell, P. (2004). The new language centers: New mandates, new horizons.
In S. Fotos & C. Browne (Eds.), New perspectives on CALL for second language
classrooms (pp. 27-40). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Garza, T. J. (1991). Evaluating the use of captioned video materials in advanced foreign
language learning. Foreign Language Annals, 24 (3), 239-45.
Gass, S. (1999). Incidental vocabulary learning. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
21 (2), 319-333.
Gass, S., & Selinker, L. (2001). Second language acquisition: An introductory course (2nd
ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Barbara A. Lafford, Peter A. Lafford, and Julie Sykes
523
Gass, S., & Varonis, E. M. (1994). Input, interaction and second language production. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 16 (3), 283-302.
Gathercole, S. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (1989). Evaluation of the role of phonological STM
in the development of vocabulary in children: A longitudinal study. Journal of
Memory and Language, 28 (2), 200-213.
Gathercole, S. E., & Thorn, A. S. C. (1998). Phonological short-term memory and foreign
language learning. In A. Healy & L. E. Bourne (Eds.), Foreign language learning: Psycholinguistic studies on training and retention (pp. 141-155). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
González-Lloret, M. (2003). Designing task-based CALL to promote interaction: En busca
de esmeraldas. Language Learning & Technology, 7 (1), 86-104. Retrieved February 14, 2007, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num1/gonzalez
Goodfellow, R. (1993). CALL for vocabulary: Requirements, theory and design. Computer
Assisted Language Learning, 6 (2), 99-122.
Goodfellow, R., & Laurillard, D. (1994). Modeling learning processes in lexical CALL.
CALICO Journal, 11 (3), 19-46.
González-Lloret, M. (n. d.). En busca de esmeraldas. Honolulu, HI: University of Hawaii.
http://marta.lll.hawaii.edu/enbusca/qtvrlet.htm
Hall, J. K. (1999). A prosaics of interaction. In E. Hinkel (Ed.), Culture in second language
teaching and learning (pp. 137-151). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hatch, E. (1978). Discourse and second language acquisition. In E. Hatch (Ed.), Second
language acquisition: A book of readings (pp. 401-435). Rowley, MA: Newbury
House.
Henricksen, B. (1999). Three dimensions of vocabulary development. Studies in Second
Language Acquisition, 21 (2), 303-318.
Hulstijn, J. H. (1992). Retention of inferred and given word meanings: Experiments in
incidental vocabulary learning. In P. Arnaud & H. Bénoit (Eds.), Vocabulary and
applied linguistics (pp. 113-125). London: Macmillan.
Hulstijn, J. H., Hollander, M., & Greidanus, T. (1996). Incidental vocabulary learning by
advanced foreign language students: The influence of marginal glosses, dictionary use and reoccurrence of unknown words. The Modern Language Journal, 80
(3), 327-339.
Ife, A., Vives Boix, G., & Meara, P. (2000). The impact of study abroad on the vocabulary
development of different proficiency groups. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 4 (1),
55-84.
Knight, S. (1994). Dictionary use while reading: The effects on comprehension and vocabulary acquisition for students of different verbal abilities. The Modern Language
Journal, 78 (3), 285-299.
Kramsch, C. (1993). Context and culture in language teaching. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Kramsch, C. (2000). Second language acquisition, applied linguistics, and the teaching of
foreign languages. The Modern Language Journal, 84 (3), 311-326.
Krashen, S. (1985). The input hypothesis: Issues and implications. New York: Longman.
524
CALICO Journal, Vol. 24, No. 3
Krashen, S. (1989). We acquire vocabulary and spelling by reading: Additional evidence
for the Input Hypothesis. The Modern Language Journal, 73 (4), 440-464.
Lafford, B. (2004). [Review of TeLL Me More Spanish]. Language Learning & Technology, 8 (3), 21-34. Retrieved February 14, 2007, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol8num3/
review1
Lafford, B., Collentine, J. G., & Karp, A. (2003). The acquisition of lexical meaning by
second language learners: An analysis of general research trends with evidence
from Spanish. In B. Lafford & R. Salaberry (Eds.), Spanish second language
acquisition: State of the science (pp. 130-59). Washington, DC: Georgetown
University Press.
Language Learning and Resource Center, MIT. (n. d.). Paradoja [CD-ROM]. Cambridge,
MA: Author. http://polyglot.mit.edu/html/paradoja/paradoja.htm
Lantolf, J. P. (1999). Second culture acquisition: Cognitive considerations. In E. Hinkel
(Ed.), Culture in second language teaching and learning (pp.28-46). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Lantolf, J., Labarca, A., & den Tuinder, J. (1985). Strategies for accessing bilingual dictionaries: A question of regulation. Hispania, 68 (4), 858-864.
Laufer, B., & Hill, M. (2000). What lexical information do L2 learners select in a CALL
dictionary and how does it affect word retention? Language Learning & Technology, 3 (2), 58-76. Retrieved February 14, 2007, from http://llt.msu.edu/
vol3num2/laufer-hill/index.html
Learn Spanish Now [CD-ROM]. (2002). Merrimack, NH: Transparent Language. http://
www.transparent.com/languagepages/spanish/spanish.htm
Learn to Speak Spanish [CD-ROM]. (n. d.) San Francisco: The Learning Company.
Ledgerwood, M. D. (2001). [Review of EuroTalk Interactive Advanced Spanish]. CALICO
Journal, 19 (3), 649-661.
Lee, J. F., & Wolf, D. F. (1997). A quantitative and qualitative analysis of the word-meaning inferencing strategies of L1 and L2 readers. Spanish Applied Linguistics, 1
(1), 24-64.
Leow, R. (2001). Do learners notice enhanced forms while interacting with the L2? An
online and offline study of the role of written input enhancement in L2 reading.
Hispania, 84 (4), 496-509.
Lomicka, L. (1998). To gloss or not to gloss: An investigation of reading comprehension
on-line. Language Learning & Technology, 1 (2), 41-50. Retrieved February 14,
2007, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol1num2/article2/default.html
Long, M. (1985). A role for instruction in second language acquisition: Task-based language teaching. In K. Hyltenstam & M. Pienemann (Eds.), Modeling and assessing second language development (pp. 77-99). Clevedon, England: Multilingual
Matters.
Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research and practice. In C.
Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second language
acquisition. (pp.15-41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Luppescu, S., & Day, R. (1993). Reading, dictionaries and vocabulary learning. Language
Learning, 43 (2), 263-287.
Barbara A. Lafford, Peter A. Lafford, and Julie Sykes
525
Lyster, R. (1998). Negotiation of form, recasts and explicit correction in relation to error
types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning, 48 (2),
183-218.
Lyster, R., & Ranta, L. (1997). Corrective feedback and learner uptake: Negotiation of
form in communicative classrooms. Studies in Second Language Acquisition,
19 (1), 37-66.
Mantle-Bromley, C. (1992). Preparing students for meaningful culture learning. Foreign
Language Annals, 25 (2), 117-127.
Markhan, F. L. (1989). The effects of captioned videotapes on the listening comprehension
of beginning, intermediate, and advanced ESL students. Educational Technology, 29 (1), 38-41.
Mayer, R. E. (1997). Multimedia learning: Are we asking the right questions? Educational
Psychologist, 32 (1), 1-19.
McLaughlin, B. (1998). Second language learning revisited: The psycholinguistic perspective. In A. F. Healy & L. E. Bourne, Jr. (Eds.), Foreign language learning:
Psycholinguistic studies on training and retention (pp. 399-411). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
MENO project (Multimedia, Education and Narrative Organization). Milton Keynes, England: Open University. http://kn.open.ac.uk/public/index.cfm?wpid=736
Mishkin, P., Gu, J., & Harrington, J. (Mgn.). (n. d.). Quía. http://www.quia.com/web
Morin, R., & Goebel, J. (2001). Basic vocabulary instruction: Teaching strategies or teaching words. Foreign Language Annals, 34 (1), 8-17.
Nagata, N. (1999). The effectiveness of computer-assisted interactive glosses. Foreign
Language Annals, 32 (4), 469-479.
Nation, I. S. P. (Ed.). (1999). Vocabulary lists, word, affixes and stems. Wellington: English
Language Institute, Victoria University at Wellington.
National Standards in Foreign Language Education Project. (1996). National standards
for foreign language learning: Preparing for the 21st century. Lawrence, KS:
Allen Press.
Nesselhauf, N., & Tschichold, C. (2002). Collocations in CALL: An investigation of vocabulary-building software for EFL. Computer Assisted Language Learning, 15
(3), 251-279.
Nuevos Destinos [CD-ROM]. (2001). New York: WGBH Boston & McGraw-Hill.
Oliver, W. C., & Nelson, T. J. (1998). Un misterio en Toluca [CD-ROM]. Boston: Heinle
& Heinle.
Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and verbal processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Papagno, C., Valentine, T., & Baddeley, A. D. (1991). Phonological short-term memory
and foreign-language vocabulary learning. Journal of Memory and Language,
30 (3), 331-347.
Payne, S., & Whitney, P. J. (2002). Developing L2 Oral proficiency through synchronous
CMC: Output, working memory and interlanguage development. CALICO Journal, 20 (1), 7-32.
526
CALICO Journal, Vol. 24, No. 3
Pica, T., Holliday, L., Lewis, N., & Morgenthaler, L. (1989). Comprehensible output as
an outcome of linguistic demands on the learner. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 11 (1), 63-90.
Pica, T., Kanagy, R. & Falodun, J. (1993). Choosing and using communication tasks for
second language instruction. In G. Crookes & S. Gass (Eds.), Tasks and language learning: Integrating theory and practice (Vol. 1, pp. 9-34). Clevedon,
England: Multilingual Matters.
Pike, K. (1967). Language in relation to a unified theory of the structure of human behavior (2nd ed.). The Hague: Mouton.
Renjilian-Brugy, J., Chiquito, A. B., & Mraz, S. (2002). Caminos multimedia CD-ROM
(2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. http://college.hmco.com/CollegeCatalog/
CatalogController?cmd=Portal&subcmd=display&ProductID=2088
Romjin, E., Seely, C., Statan, L., Wachman, R., & Hanson-Smith, E. (2004). Live action
Spanish interactive: TPR on a computer [CD-ROM]. Berkeley, CA: Command
Performance Language Institute. http://www.cpli.net
Rosetta Stone: Spanish Latin America, Levels 1 & 2, 3 [beta version] [CD-ROM]. (2003a).
Harrisonburg, VA: Fairfield Language Technologies.
Rosetta Stone: Language learning success. (2003b). Harrisonburg, VA: Fairfield Language
Technologies.
Rumelhart, D. (1980). Schemata: The building blocks of cognition. In R. Spiro, B. Bruce,
& W. Brewer (Eds.), Theoretical issues in reading (pp. 33-58). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Rusch, D., Domínguez, M., & Caycedo Garner, L. (2003). Imágenes, E-SAM & electronic
workbook (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin. http://boooks.quia.com
Salaberry, R., Barrett, C. M., Elliott, P., Fernández-García, M., Ardemagni, E., Narbona, J.,
& Viedma, P. (2004). Impresiones: Textbook and companion website. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. http://wps.prenhall.com/ml_salaberry_impresiones_1
Schank, R., & Abelson, R. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals and understanding: An inquiry into
human knowledge structures. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schmidt, R. (1992). Psychological mechanisms underlying second language fluency. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14 (3), 357-385.
Schmidt, R. (1993). Awareness and second language acquisition. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 13, 206-226.
Schmitt, N., & McCarthy, M. (1997). Glossary. In N. Schmitt & M. McCarthy (Eds.),
Vocabulary: Description, acquisition and pedagogy (pp. 327-331). Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing I: Detection, search and attention. Psychological Review, 84 (1), 1-64.
Silva Corvalán, C. (2001). Sociolingüística y pragmática del español. Washington, DC:
Georgetown University Press.
Smith, B. (2003). The use of communication strategies in computer-mediated communication. System, 31 (1), 29-53.
Barbara A. Lafford, Peter A. Lafford, and Julie Sykes
527
Smith, E. E., & Shen, C.-W. (1992). The effects of knowledge of results feedback of captioning on listening comprehension of English as a second language in interactive video systems. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 34826)
Snellings, P., van Gelderen, A., & de Glopper, K. (2002). Lexical retrieval: An aspect of
fluent second language production that can be enhanced. Language Learning, 52
(4), 723-754.
Spinelli, E. (n. d.). Encuentros en español: An educational mystery adventure [CD-ROM].
Austin, TX: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc. Harcourt Brace College Publisher.
Spinelli, E., & Siskin, H. J. (1992). Selecting, presenting and practicing vocabulary in a
culturally authentic context. Foreign Language Annals, 25 (4), 305-315.
Swain, M. (1985). Communicative competence: Some roles of comprehensible input and
comprehensible output in its development. In S. Gass & C. Madden (Eds.), Input
and second language acquisition (pp. 235-253). Rowley, MA: Newbury House.
TeLL Me More Spanish [CD-ROM]. (2002). Phoenix, AZ: Auralog.
Terrell, T. (1986). Acquisition in the Natural Approach: The binding/access framework.
The Modern Language Journal, 70 (3), 213-227.
Tudini, V. (2003). Using native speakers in chat. Language Learning & Technology, 7 (3),
141-159. Retrieved February 14, 2007, from http://llt.msu.edu/vol7num3/tudini
VanPatten, B. (1996). Input processing and grammar instruction in second language acquisition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
VanPatten, B., & Cadierno, T. (1993). Explicit instruction and input processing. Studies in
Second Language Acquisition, 15 (2), 225-244.
VanPatten, B., Glass, W., Binkowski, D. D., Lee, J. F., Ballman, T. L., & Farley, A. P.
(2004). ¿Sabías qué …? online manual, Vol. 1 (4th ed.). New York: McGrawHill. http://books.quia.com
VanPatten, B., & Leeser, M. J. (2006). Theoretical and research considerations underlying
classroom practice: The fundamental role of input. In R. Salaberry & B. Lafford
(Eds.), Spanish second language acquisition: From theory to practice (pp. 5577). Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Watanabe, Y. (1997). Input, intake, and retention: Effects of increased processing on incidental learning of foreign language vocabulary. Studies in Second Language
Acquisition, 19 (3), 287-307.
Weinert, R. (1995). The role of formulaic language in second language acquisition: A review. Applied Linguistics, 16 (2), 180-205.
Wesche, M., & Paribakht, T. S. (2000). Reading-based exercises in second language vocabulary learning: An introspective study. The Modern Language Journal, 84
(2), 196-213.
Willis, J. (1996). A flexible framework for task-based learning. In J. Willis & D. Willis
(Eds.), Challenge and change in language teaching (pp. 52-62). Oxford: Heinemann English Language Teaching.
528
CALICO Journal, Vol. 24, No. 3
Wingfield, A., Lahar, C. J., & Stine, E. A. L. (1989). Age and decision strategies in running memory for speech: Effects of prosody and linguistic structure. Journal of
Gerontology, 44 (1), 106-113.
Wittrock, C. (1990). Generative process of comprehension. Education Psychologist, 2 (4),
345-376.
AUTHORS’ BIODATA
Barbara A. Lafford is a Professor of Spanish and Linguistics at Arizona State
University. She has published in the areas of Spanish sociolinguistics, second
language acquisition, applied linguistics, and CALL. With Peter A. Lafford she
recently co-authored a CALICO Journal article (2005) on cutting-edge wired and
wireless technologies that can be used to facilitate language instruction. Prof.
Lafford has presented regularly at CALICO and other national and international
linguistics associations (ACTFL, AATSP, AAAL, AILA) and has served on the
board of the Southwest Conference on Language Teaching and as President of
the Arizona Language Association. She currently serves as Chair of the CALICO
board and as editor for the new Monograph/Focus Issue Series of The Modern
Language Journal.
Peter Lafford is Associate Research Professional and Director of the Language
Computing Laboratory at Arizona State University. He has written several reviews and articles for the CALICO Journal and other journals, and he is a frequent
presenter at CALICO conferences and other national, regional, and state language
conferences. He co-authored the chapter “Teaching Language and Culture with
Internet Technologies” in the 1997 ACTFL volume Technology-Enhanced Language Learning and (with Barbara A. Lafford) he recently published an article in
the CALICO Journal (2005) on cutting-edge wired and wireless technologies that
can be used to facilitate language instruction. He is currently developing specialized delivery systems for the digital resources used in the hybridized language
courses at Arizona State University.
Julie Sykes received her M.A. from Arizona State University in Spanish Linguistics where she also worked as the 200-Level Spanish Coordinator and developed numerous web-based instructional materials. She is currently pursuing her
doctoral degree in Spanish Linguistics at the University of Minnesota. She has
published a co-authored article on pragmatic aspects of translation and her article
on the use of computer technology to teach pragmatics appeared in the CALICO
Journal (2005). Her research interests include CALL and interlanguage pragmatics, specifically focusing on oral communication.
Barbara A. Lafford, Peter A. Lafford, and Julie Sykes
AUTHORS’ ADDRESSES
Barbara A. Lafford
Department of Languages and Literatures
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ 85287-0202
Phone: 480 965 4648
Fax:
480 965 0135
Email: [email protected]
Peter A. Lafford
Department of Languages and Literatures
Arizona State University
Tempe, AZ 85287-0202
Phone: 480 965 4524
Fax:
480 965 0135
Email: [email protected]
Julie Sykes
Spanish and Portuguese Studies
University of Minnesota
34 Folwell Hall
9 Pleasant Street S.E.
Minneapolis, MN 55455-0124
Phone: 612 625 5858
Fax:
612 625 3549
Email: [email protected]
529
530
CALICO Journal, Vol. 24, No. 3